I'm 27 and I liked the dialogue very much. "Phuket, Thailand" was pretty awesome and pretty close to how me and my friends used to talk in high school. My friend used to say "Shiite muslim" alot. OK, not politically correct, but we thought it was pretty funny when we were 16.

If you think deadpan ironic detachment is an emotional dead end, fine. But don't say it's inauthentic -- plenty of people do talk that way. Of course they tend to be "not in the social mainstream", shall we say. Remember the movie "Ghost World?" Yeah, something like that.

So, better luck next time.

and even if people don't talk that way, the point is that the dialog is stylized -- it's an artistic creation. People don't talk the way David Mamet's characters talk, but the way his characters talk is part of the fun of the show. It's like poetry. I think the dialog is a big part of what makes the movie much, much more interesting than a morality tale.

There's artistic creation that takes work (Mamet, Burgess, etc.), and there's artistic creation that takes none. Cody's writing is the latter. For good writers, stylized language blankets underlying themes, which emerge sometimes despite, and sometimes because of, the language. In Juno, the stylized language IS the theme. Cody's script is jarring not because I've never heard anyone say "Honest to blog," and not because no one has ever said "Honest to blog," but rather because "Honest to blog" is a creation that should remain, always and forever, in the personal lexicon of the individual or sub-culture that creates it, because, quite simply, it is clunky and unfunny. The "this is how me and my friends talk" argument doesn't help. If you and your friends thought "Shiite Muslim" was funny when you were sixteen, that's fine. But no one wants to pay 10 dollars to hear you and your friends say "Shiite Muslim."

And if the dialogue is conceivably realistic--meaning someone, somewhere might conceivably talk like Juno and her friends--then why are they not enchanted with their own wit? Oh, that's right--because it's a sitcom, minus the canned laughter, where sarcasm and wordplay flow like effluent from a leaky septic tank without the slightest hint recognition from any of the characters. Which is fine, if we're calling a spade a spade. But we're not. We're calling this drivel "authentic," which it most clearly is not.

pawntucket:

--meaning someone, somewhere might conceivably talk like Juno and her friends--then why are they not enchanted with their own wit?

They can't. It's all part of being a teenager--one cannot acknowledge anything. Witty, exciting, or even terrible. One must maintain an unflappable cool--detachment is absolutely mandatory for 21st century adolescence.

I work with a lot of juveniles, and I think that the movie's dialogue is spot-on. (There may be a bit of geographic difference in the vocabulary, but once you weed out the obscene and scatological, it's largely similar.) Some of the things these kids say nowadays.... sometimes I want to SMACK 'EM and bust out the Life-Buoy, but more often their most casual conversation puts me in raptures. THEY, or course, are not impressed.

pawntucket:

There's artistic creation that takes work (Mamet, Burgess, etc.), and there's artistic creation that takes none. Cody's writing is the latter.

I disagree, but I don't see this line of conversation going anywhere. Neither of us can marshal direct evidence for our claims.

pawntucket:

For good writers, stylized language blankets underlying themes, which emerge sometimes despite, and sometimes because of, the language. In Juno, the stylized language IS the theme. Cody's script is jarring not because I've never heard anyone say "Honest to blog," and not because no one has ever said "Honest to blog," but rather because "Honest to blog" is a creation that should remain, always and forever, in the personal lexicon of the individual or sub-culture that creates it, because, quite simply, it is clunky and unfunny.

Honest to blog is pretty dumb, but I don't think you've supported your argument that the stylized language is the theme. Why not say that one of the themes involves a deadpan ironic teenager coming to terms with a potentially life-changing emotional event?

pawntucket:

The "this is how me and my friends talk" argument doesn't help. If you and your friends thought "Shiite Muslim" was funny when you were sixteen, that's fine. But no one wants to pay 10 dollars to hear you and your friends say "Shiite Muslim."

Word. That sounds like a pretty one-dimensional experience. Luckily, the nostalgic charms of remembering life as an awkward yet invincible teenager were only part of the appeal of the movie.

pawntucket:

And if the dialogue is conceivably realistic--meaning someone, somewhere might conceivably talk like Juno and her friends--then why are they not enchanted with their own wit? Oh, that's right--because it's a sitcom, minus the canned laughter, where sarcasm and wordplay flow like effluent from a leaky septic tank without the slightest hint recognition from any of the characters. Which is fine, if we're calling a spade a spade. But we're not. We're calling this drivel "authentic," which it most clearly is not.

Well, you're right, there ought to be more barely repressed laughter.

for not calling me out on my spelling of "dialogue"

Well, others are calling it authentic, I'm just saying I like it. I like Coen Brothers movies, and Deadwood, and Waiting for Godot, and Krazy Kat, and all sorts of things just because they strike me as unusual. I found it neither clumsy nor unfunny, and it couldn't have been so consistent without quite a bit of work. Not your cuppa, okay by me. I just think the language is a lot more important than the politics.

I think people who are complaining about the dialogue simply didn't get many of the references or maybe are disturbed at aspects of the film that might be considered part of a postmodern mash-up. The dialogue in part is similar to certain facets of hip-hop where similes and metaphors can reveal further meaning or reference. For example, what demographic do you think understood Juno's shouting "Thundercats are go!" when it was time to have the kid? Not that one needed to know what Thundercats were in order to laugh, but three of the four people I saw the film with didn't realize that the Thundercats were an 80's toy and cartoon franchise. So while this may not be on a Shakespearean level, it does add a little more dimension. Juno's dialogue also included historical references, some of which I got and others that I didn't. They not only served as indicators of cleverness or as situational reference, but to indicate that the character, Juno, was smart. Other comments, such as the blog phrase were pulled straight from pop culture and reminded me of similar dialogue from a couple of Judd Apatow's movies. Still, in order to enjoy the movie it wasn't necessary to hang onto every word, or to get every reference (no matter how obscure). To many the story and characters were interesting enough.

Yeah. I do think that you have to think "Thundercats are go" sounds good. I do. So then it doesn't really matter to me that it was an 80's cartoon thing (but thank you for reminding me!).

That to me is the difference between Juno and Dennis Miller. Miller swamps you with obscure references, but you need to get the reference. I agree with you that Juno is different, and I liked the story and the characters. I just think the language was really interesting, different even than Judd Apatow. It reminded me of the best sections of Gilmore Girls. For many, that's damning with feint praise, but I really liked the movie.

The problem with the Thundecats line is that Juno was not even born by the time the show was taken off the air. She only knows it cuz 30 year old "Diablo" knows it. Same with the Soupy Sales reference. It doesn't work. Why not just have her excel in science or math if she is supposed to be so smart. Being hip to pop-cultural references doesn't indicate intelligence to me. It just means you've watched alot of TV.

I, too, had a slight problem when wondering how Juno could relate to some of the pop-culture references pulled from the 80's and even 90's. Even the music she liked didn't quite jive with her age. But, in retrospect there was nothing in the film to date it with any certainty other than pop-culture references. She wasn't driving a 2007 Toyota Sienna, it was a P.O.S. 90's Previa. And the Thundercats were toys and all of the popular 80's toys had cartoon counterparts, which came on Saturday mornings. That doesn't mean people who get those particular references sat around and watched a ton of TV. Even though Juno's speech references weren't limited to pop-culture I wouldn't quite classify all of the dialogue as intelligent, but the pace, the wit, and range of ideas doesn't exactly make Juno's character or anyone else who liked some of a dialogue a dumbass.

(er, "argument") was that I enjoyed the language even when I didn't get the reference. I don't really care about the date of thundercats (and it's not necessarily an anachronism -- we used to say "Cat, Cat," referring to Cat Stevens, even though Cat was long since Yusef whatever).

I agree that "being hip to pop-cultural references doesn't indicate intelligence ...It just means you've watched a lot of TV." I just like the way the language sounds. I like it the way I like poetry. I know that not everybody enjoys this sort of thing, but I still think it's worth recognizing. What makes it fun for me is that it is different from ordinary speech.

You can disagree with me (obviously) on that point, but pointing out moments with the words don't jive with your sense of teenagers doesn't speak to my argument (er, "argument" -- in quotes because I'm really just talking about my own tastes).

That's the thing. I wasn't too hung up on the specificities of the dialogue either and whether or not I supposedly 'got' anything I still enjoyed it. I never even focused so much on it until I started reading articles and comments that said that I wasn't supposed to enjoy the movie. Only in afterthought did I begin to (over)analyze. Well, I'm glad I liked the film and am glad you did too. The more I think about it I hate this Slate article, which is a review of the reviews? I like your point about poetry, and it kind of fits into my hip-hop analogy.

While conceding that deadpan and detachment are one part of a teenager's arsenal, self-congratulatory, sarcastic or sycophantic laughter is another. If you've spent so much time with teenagers, you would know that it is not a world devoid of cackling.

But if their casual conversation is putting you in raptures, you are either easily impressed, or are hanging out with some verbally gifted teenagers.

"I disagree, but I don't see this line of conversation going anywhere. Neither of us can marshal direct evidence for our claims."

Really? Quite the assumption. Read up on Burgess and Mamet first, then get back to me. As for Cody, her formal writing experience is a blog. Read her blog. Then tell me she is a hardworking writer. (In the end, I'll concede this point. For all I know, Cody slaves over lines like "Your eggo is preggo." Maybe she spends weeks reworking them. Maybe "When I see that kid, I'm going to punch him in the weiner" is the product of months spent hunched over the keyboard. I cannot quantify hard work here, so the point is moot. The larger point is that Cody's linguistic stylings are crappy.)

"Honest to blog is pretty dumb, but I don't think you've supported your argument that the stylized language is the theme. Why not say that one of the themes involves a deadpan ironic teenager coming to terms with a potentially life-changing emotional event?"

Because if I were to say that, I would be lying. Juno comes to terms with nothing, at least not in any organic, authentic, or consistent way. What does she come to terms with? The fact that one half of some yuppies couples will turn out to be retrogressing hipsters? That pregnancy offers a wealth of new material for riffing? That she's "dealing with things way beyond her maturity level?" What is she dealing with??? The reasons she shows for all of her actions are completely without substance. She has sex out of boredom. She keeps a baby because of a weird abortion clinic and a weirder pro-life activist. She chooses a couple to adopt because...they're in the Penny Saver. She hangs out with an older man over music and movies. She bonds with an older woman because she saw the woman being nice to kids at a mall (fortunate meeting, that). Then she "falls back in love" with a boy for whom she has shown no previous affection and with whom she has no chemistry.

(By the way, I love that you use "potentially life-changing" in your description of her pregnancy. That is so wizard.)

"Word. That sounds like a pretty one-dimensional experience. Luckily, the nostalgic charms of remembering life as an awkward yet invincible teenager were only part of the appeal of the movie."

I think you meant "Wizard." But you're right. It was a one-dimensional experience. The other dimensions you thought you experienced were shameless manipulations. Cody was right when she thought, "Ok, now I've got my hour and a half of soulless snark. Let me throw in some tears to warm their hearts." Also, one only shows invincibility when up against a challenge. Juno is challenged by nothing. (Remember, the pregnancy is a prop, not a theme.)

"Well, you're right, there ought to be more barely repressed laughter."

Right.